Roman Catholicism holds that the white paper of man’s soul received two impressions instead of one. Protestantism sees no reason why both impressions should not have been given at the beginning. Kaftan, in Am. Jour. Theology, 4:708, gives a good statement of the Roman Catholic view. It holds that the supreme good transcends the finite mind and its powers of comprehension. Even at the first it was beyond man’s created nature. The _donum superadditum_ did not inwardly and personally belong to him. Now that he has lost it, he is entirely dependent on the church for truth and grace. He does not receive the truth because it is this and no other, but because the church tells him that it is the truth. The Roman Catholic doctrine may be roughly and pictorially stated as follows: As created, man was morally naked, or devoid of positive righteousness (_pura naturalia_, or _in puris naturalibus_). By obedience he obtained as a reward from God (_donum supernaturale_, or _superadditum_) a suit of clothes or robe of righteousness to protect him, so that he became clothed (_vestitus_). This suit of clothes, however, was a sort of magic spell of which he could be divested. The adversary attacked him and stripped him of his suit. After his sin he was one despoiled (_spoliatus_). But his condition after differed from his condition before this attack, only as a stripped man differs from a naked man (_spoliatus a nudo_). He was now only in the same state in which he was created, with the single exception of the weakness he might feel as the result of losing his customary clothing. He could still earn himself another suit,—in fact, he could earn two or more, so as to sell, or give away, what he did not need for himself. The phrase _in puris naturalibus_ describes the original state, as the phrase _spoliatus a nudo_ describes the difference resulting from man’s sin. Many of the considerations already adduced apply equally as arguments against this view. We may say, however, with reference to certain features peculiar to the theory: (_a_) No such distinction can justly be drawn between the words צלם and דםות. The addition of the synonym simply strengthens the expression, and both together signify “the very image.” (_b_) Whatever is denoted by either or both of these words was bestowed upon man in and by the fact of creation, and the additional hypothesis of a supernatural gift not originally belonging to man’s nature, but subsequently conferred, has no foundation either here or elsewhere in Scripture. Man is said to have been created in the image and likeness of God, not to have been afterwards endowed with either of them.